Is Consent really King?

In America today, what's right and wrong is governed by consent (aka permission). When everyone involved is consenting to the behavior, it is regarded as right. If anyone involved is not consenting, it's wrong.

But is this always the case? Let's consider some examples:

1. A bachelor and a bachelorette have consensual sex. Both parties are consenting, so it is generally viewed as right.
1. This is not universally true. An example where unmarried consensual sex is NOT viewed as right is when one of the consenting partners is only 13 years old.
2. A homosexual couple has consensual sex together. Consent is deemed right, even if the law of the land forbids homosexual behavior.
3. Residency and citizenship equate to consent to be governed by the law of the land. However, "the devil is in the details." If a 435-member gang unanimously steals from a man, this is not right. Even if the man is extremely wealthy and the gang only steals a little, it is wrong. 
4. A president may be elected without a simple majority. Those who voted against the president say consent standards are violated on two counts:
1. They themselves did not consent.
2. They believe that fairness requires a majority of participants concur. Since the will of a minority rules in this case and the majority's will was denied, this is regarded as a violation of accepted ethicals standards. However, citizenship does equate to consent. The law of the land has established rules regarding electing a president, so that consent to be a citizen supersedes the majority-rules ethic.
5. Suppose a family with five children is divided on what activity they should do on Saturday: all five kids say they should go to the circus. The parents say they should catch up on homework and chores.
1. Simple majority rules suggest that what is right is for the family to go to the circus.
2. However, this is not an egalitarian group where everyone's voice counts the same. The voice of the parents is (or should be) louder than the voice of the children. That is, the parents provide the boundaries within which the children may develop consent. If the parents outline that Saturday must be spent doing chores, the children do not have the right to decide to do something different.
6. Suppose a sergeant orders his unit to do something they do not wish to do. Like the family situation, the sergeant is invested with authority that transcends the will of his men. They are to obey or face penalties.
1. Similar to the citizenship-consent principle, soldiers have generally consented to be under the command of their superior officers.
2. The sergeant, and even the entire chain of command above him may be in error, and a conscientious objector may feel compelled to disobey. Even if the objector believes they are right, they must understand that their rectitude does not exempt them from the established consequences for disobedience. 

Christians take their understanding of the role of consent a step further and believe that in every situation, there is one more participant involved: God. And while God doesn't generally voice his preferences and directions real-time, he has already done so in the Bible. God's role is not an egalitarian role. He is not a peer in the decision-making process. He is an authority (like parents or a sergeant). So then, even if every person involved is in agreement, their agreement is bounded by what Scripture expresses to be God's will of the boundaries of acceptable choices.

In a pluralistic society, introducing God and Scripture into the decision-making mix is complicated. For example:

1. It is difficult to respect the other side's perspective when non-Christians believe the Bible is irrelevant while Bible-believing Christians sincerely believe that what God says transcends what every man says. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). "Let God be true and every man a liar." (Rom 3:4, KJV)
2. Worse, even among Bible-believing Christians, there is not unanimity about their understanding of what Scripture directs in every situation. For example, on the topic of homosexuality, some believe the Bible's principles of love transcend the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality as sin.
3. When Christians interact with non-Christians, both sides believe their view applies to the other:.
1. Christians believe non-Christians should comply with Biblical ethics (understanding them to be universal and mandated by the one true God).
2. Non-Christians believe Christians should abandon the Bible in favor of generally accepted principles.
3. When a Christian baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, on the grounds that he believes the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, this violates the expectations of the homosexual couple.

How do we resolve the stalemate arising from holding different convictions regarding consent? Here are a few ideas:

1. In commercial interactions, all parties must agree to the terms of engagement. Explicitly state the terms at a practical level and get both sides to agree to them. If agreement cannot be reached, this prevents the engagement from continuing. The parties must find satisfaction elsewhere rather than compelling the other to violate their principles.
2. In personal matters such as a person's sex life, all will generally feel strongly about their own perspective, until that matter becomes a point of engagement, it is best to leave it alone. 
3. Are there areas where compromise can be made? Can the baker make a regular cake for a homosexual couple?

May the dialog continue.

This post was originally drafted 11/18/2017.